Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Virtualization Disallowed For Vista Home

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the little-bossy dept.

369

Maxx writes to mention a ZDNet article about Microsoft's dictum on Vista as a virtual machine. The software giant has declared that home versions of their upcoming OS may not be run virtually, because 'virtualization is not mature enough for broad adoption.' From the article: "'Microsoft says that consumers don't understand the risks of running virtual machines, and they only want enterprises that understand the risks to run Vista on a VM. So, Microsoft removes user choice in the name of security,' says Gartner analyst Michael Silver. 'The other option is to pay Microsoft US$300 for Windows Vista Business or US$399 for Windows Ultimate, instead of US$200 for Home Basic or US$239 for Home Premium,' Silver suggested."

cancel ×

369 comments

B.S. (4, Insightful)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 7 years ago | (#16973310)

This will be impossible and they know it. There are plenty of companies who need to virtualize this OS for testing purposes. It wouldn't surprise me if MS did this internally. Meh, who cares though. Just another reason to use VMWare.

Home User, Not the Companies (0, Offtopic)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 7 years ago | (#16973328)

It's in the summary, Moby:
The software giant has declared that home versions of their upcoming OS may not be run virtually, because 'virtualization is not mature enough for broad adoption.
Wake up from your tryptophan tryp, man! It's not that early! :-)

Re:Home User, Not the Companies (4, Interesting)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 7 years ago | (#16973430)

Yes..... and companies that write software for home users will need to run VMs that contain the home version of the operating system for testing purposes. Therefore the home user will also be able to do the same thing.

Re:Home User, Not the Companies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16973502)

Listen, if a company is that concerned about writing the software and testing it on the end-user experience, they aren't going to want to use virtualization anyways since the end-user can't do it. I certainly hope that most (if not all) software written for vista works on all the releases of it. If not, there's a schism that will certainly help the Linux community. Distro wars in Linux or upgrade wars in Windows--take your pick.

Re:Home User, Not the Companies (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16973838)

What are you talking about? They are not testing that the product works in a virtualized environment. They are testing that it works on Vista Home. The software is deployed from the development machine onto the virtual machine that is in a 'clean' state. Testing is done, and then the virtual machine can be reset back to a clean state a lot quicker than re-imaging the hard drive of a physical machine. The final verion(s) will be tested on a physical machine after they are happy with the results on the virtual machine.
    This is obviously not how you develop fast action games, but it has been a real boon for testing other types of applications.

Re:Home User, Not the Companies (1)

Tim C (15259) | more than 7 years ago | (#16973438)

So how does a company that needs to test its products on Vista Home virtualise it?

Re:Home User, Not the Companies (1)

Bogtha (906264) | more than 7 years ago | (#16973554)

Read his comment again:

There are plenty of companies who need to virtualize this OS for testing purposes.

He's talking about companies that sell software to people running Vista Home.

Re:B.S. (4, Interesting)

thona (556334) | more than 7 years ago | (#16973330)

::There are plenty of companies who need to virtualize this OS for testing purposes.

And only the most idiotic of those will use the Home EULA version. See, I use Home for testing downloaded from MSDN, and as such subject to the MSDN licensing agreement, NOT the EULA. I would have to check these conditions, but I would be surprised would that appear there, too.

Re:B.S. (NOT!!!) (3, Informative)

cdn-programmer (468978) | more than 7 years ago | (#16973392)

I would be one who would want to virtualize the home version. Anyone doing development may need to do this. There are many legitimate reason - ease of debugging is one. Ease of determining how someone 0wn3d a machine is another.

 

Re:B.S. (NOT!!!) (4, Interesting)

number6x (626555) | more than 7 years ago | (#16973702)

So just have your legal department contact MS and work through the licensing that will allow you to do this.

What? You don't have a legal department, and you can't afford to hire a law firm for something as trivial as setting up a virtual machine.

Gee, I guess that means that you won't be able to test the software you are writing against the Vista HOME platform in a cost effective manner. So you will either have to get out of that business, or release substandard software for that platform.

Microsoft's rule change will result in either increasing your costs, or decreasing your quality of product. either way they are reducing your ability to effectively compete with them in the free market. They are undercutting competition by manipulating the legal rules, as opposed to using direct head to head competition in the free market. Your product may not even compete directly with any of their existing products, but you still form a potential threat. You may be the next Linus Torvalds or David Heinemeier Hansson.

Reducing competition helps to protect their monopoly, or so they believe.

Of course, you may want to contact a lawyer that specializes in Class Action lawsuits. Get them to think of all of the web developers they can represent who are have their product's cost effectiveness reduced by this anti-competitive move from a convicted monopolist who is known to settle lawsuits quickly out of Court. Heck, you could make some law firm rich, and maybe even see a few hundred, or a few thousand dollars in settlement money!

Re:B.S. (2, Interesting)

omeg (907329) | more than 7 years ago | (#16973348)

Not just impossible, it should also not be allowed. Perhaps I'll be labelled as old-fashioned for saying this, but I still believe that if I've bought something, I should be able to do what I want with it. It's supposed to be mine, isn't it? (Yes, I know it's more complicated than that; but I still strongly disagree with that.) If I want to virtualize my copy of Vista, I should be able to do so. If the program somehow fails due to Microsoft deliberately making it impossible, then that's sabotage to me. Yet another reason for me to not get it.

Re:B.S. (2, Informative)

Threni (635302) | more than 7 years ago | (#16973426)

> but I still believe that if I've bought something, I should be able to do what I want with it.

You've bought a license to use a product, not the product itself, apparently. The product is a disk. You can do whatever you like with that until you stick it in a computer, then the license kicks in.

Re:B.S. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16973750)

"You've bought a license to use a product, not the product itself, apparently."

yup. and if i don't have a windows partition, the only way i can use the product is with a VM.
this should be illegal.

Re:B.S. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16973498)

You're very old-fashioned. Get with the times.

Re:B.S. (1, Redundant)

smilindog2000 (907665) | more than 7 years ago | (#16973350)

Their EULA bans using VMWare to run Windows Vista Home Edition. Come on... this is clearly a bid to force us into the more expensive version, a way to ask for more money, and nothing else. They give away virtualization technology for free, but force you to fork over $400 to use it. By forcing everyone to pay for their OS, and giving away everything else, they force out potential innovators... this time targeting VMWare.

Re:B.S. (3, Informative)

teslar (706653) | more than 7 years ago | (#16973420)

this is clearly a bid to force us into the more expensive version
You know, I agree with the give-users-a-choice and all those arguments, but how many of your average computer users will know what virtualisation is, let alone need it? This is the kind of topic the slashdot crowd will be infuriated about while the rest of the world goes "meh. don't care", assuming they even notice this.

Re:B.S. (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 7 years ago | (#16973946)

I wonder how many /. readers even use home edition? I bought pro (then subsequently started using a work laptop for all my home computing needs and just gave pr0 to my bro). And how exactly is using a VM unsafe? I was under the impression that it was safer in most regards, or at least easier to backup and restore. I did download VMware but never got around to trying it out..

Re:B.S. (2, Informative)

thegnu (557446) | more than 7 years ago | (#16973998)

This is the kind of topic the slashdot crowd will be infuriated about while the rest of the world goes "meh. don't care", assuming they even notice this.

This is why I allow my friends to run windows. They ask me, "why do you run linux? it's so hard." And all I can say is that I notice the inherent problems with Windows, and they bother me more that the inherent problems in Linux. That doesn't mean that everyone should use Linux, because as people point out, it's 'hard.'

Directly relating to what you're saying: Yes, only people this inconveniences are going to complain. When I worked in an Internet cafe in Mexico right after XP came out, we purchased licenses for all our boxes. When we upgraded the equipment, we realized that we were not afforded the flexibility we needed by paying for the OS, and our profit margins being small enough to preclude any real exploratory legal action, we just pirated the software. Not moral, but there was no other option at the time.

Now they're going to be installing all Macs, because if a user needs Vista, they can just run a VM. Oh, wait. They need to buy Vista PRO? For $300 + resale + import tariffs + extra-special-we're-billing-you-again-because-you- live-in-Mexico fee? Hmmm. Now I'M pissed off. Plus, what will be the distinct benefit of paying for it? Will it be easier to use than the pirated version? NO! Maybe they should just buy one license of Pro, and install it alongside an old copy of Win2k in parallels, and fuck Microsoft.

[this message brought to you by someone who has had to run a few businesses around microsoft's decisions. take it with a grain of salt]

Re:B.S. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16973654)

Their EULA can ban whatever they wish but it's not enforceable. Either they ask high price for Home version or cripple it so much that it won't run well in virtual machines but writing it in EULA means nothing.

Then again, maybe some poor souls live in a country where EULAs are enforceable. I pity those fools.

Re:B.S. (3, Insightful)

neoform (551705) | more than 7 years ago | (#16973440)

*next week*

"Microsoft announces iTunes will be disabled on all copies of Vista, because it's a security risk that users doesn't understand."

(wow, as I wrote that, I got a creepy feeling.. that statement makes me think of all the trash that's come out of whitehouse press releases by Tony Snow)

Re:B.S. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16973644)

it could be the other way around -- vista is useless for many if itunes doesn't work on it.

Er? (2, Funny)

Wrexs0ul (515885) | more than 7 years ago | (#16973460)

The article's point is that plenty of companies can do this, so long as they spend $60-$100 MORE for a business-class license. Apparently only those capable of spending more money have the cognitive capacities to understand risks involved in VM, and is a kick in the pants to home users who don't buy the same version as their office.

Which makes about as much sense as buying a more expensive copy of Windows for the coolness factor... A route their MS spokesperson maybe should've gone instead. Just imagine the black-on-colour iPod-esque commercials touting how you'll get laid dancing to your Virtual PC!

-Matt

Re:Er? (3, Funny)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 7 years ago | (#16973530)

commercials touting how you'll get laid dancing to your Virtual PC!

      Or virtually laid, at any rate...

Re:Er? (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 7 years ago | (#16973980)

Microsoft Windows sVMware Edition!

Re:Er? (1)

ray-auch (454705) | more than 7 years ago | (#16973708)

This overlooks that plenty of companies need to _test_ on home edition as that may be (one) target environment.

Testing on VMs is massively easier than the old days of separate physical test machines with multi-boot, and re-installing / re-imaging to get back to a clean state after each test.

Re:Er? (1, Insightful)

drsmithy (35869) | more than 7 years ago | (#16974050)

This overlooks that plenty of companies need to _test_ on home edition as that may be (one) target environment.

For any company that _needs_ virtualisation for that purpose, the additional cost of an appropriate Vista licence is like pissing in the ocean.

Because choice is bad (3, Insightful)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 7 years ago | (#16973314)

So where do you want to go today?

Re:Because choice is bad (1)

elfinabout (1031522) | more than 7 years ago | (#16973694)

Apple. Oh wait, I'm already there.

Yes (5, Funny)

skingers6894 (816110) | more than 7 years ago | (#16973316)

'virtualization is not mature enough for broad adoption.'

Well, neither is Vista probably.....

Re:Yes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16973456)

or Windows 2000.

Sick of moderation abuse (-1, Offtopic)

petrus4 (213815) | more than 7 years ago | (#16973572)

The parent is not Insightful, or anything close to it...it gets +5, Insightful for no other reason than that it conforms with the Slashdot groupthink.

The people running this place really need to come up with a new form of moderation...one which doesn't merely allow juvenile idiots to ensure that only their perspectives/belief system gets read or promoted. This is a problem which has existed for a long time...there are fairly clearly a number of people who get mod points who shouldn't.

That's basically all the current moderation system does...it measures how strongly the people with points agree/disagree with the post in question. Obviously that is abuse of the system...it isn't how it was intended to work. The problem however is that there is nothing to force people to be genuinely objective or honest.

Re:Sick of moderation abuse (2, Insightful)

arevos (659374) | more than 7 years ago | (#16973740)

The parent is not Insightful, or anything close to it...it gets +5, Insightful for no other reason than that it conforms with the Slashdot groupthink.

You say this, and yet you do not back up your argument. Microsoft asserts that commercial virtualization systems are not mature enough for broad use, yet such systems have had far more real world use than Vista has had. If virtualization is immature, then by surely the same standards Vista must be too.

One could equally claim that you're conforming with anti-Slashdot groupthink, where people criticise the moderators when they mod up posts why don't personally agree with.

Re:Sick of moderation abuse (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16973922)

If you need to be spoonfed facts that should be self evident you aren't intelligent enough to understand the point anyway.

That stated I think the point mistakenly assumes that Slashdot moderation is performed by the community when the bulk of it actually comes from the editor staff. Slashdot has a demographic that it must pander to in order to keep its page hits high and the moderation system is a very effective way to ensure that the site communicates the message necessary to keep that demographic coming back.

Re:Sick of moderation abuse (1)

algerath (955721) | more than 7 years ago | (#16973748)

It was, in my opinion, modded incorrectly. It should have been +5 funny.

It is pretty obvious the type of people /. brings in and some opinions are pretty strong here. If you want to see comments that discuss how much they love MS and think vista is going to be super duper you are pobably in the wrong place.

It would be something like being at the Democratic convention and bitching because no one loves Bush.

Algerath

Re:Sick of moderation abuse (0)

petrus4 (213815) | more than 7 years ago | (#16973866)

If you want to see comments that discuss how much they love MS and think vista is going to be super duper you are pobably in the wrong place.

No, I don't. I just don't want to see things modded Insightful when they're a trite, kneejerk response. To me anyway the definition of something being insightful is when some actual thought goes into the writing of it...the equivalent of five or so word, peanut gallery heckling doesn't qualify.

I saw the same thing with John Carmack's posts...in one reply he simply used the single word, "Yes," which got moderated +5 Interesting. I don't believe that that is something that excuses should be made for, either.

But it IS... (2, Insightful)

hummassa (157160) | more than 7 years ago | (#16973894)

It should have been +5 funny.
Some people here in /. (including me, sometimes) mod funny comments as insightful, especially if the comment is already negatively moderated (as offtopic, for instance). This is because a "+1, funny" won't increment the karma of the poster, but a "-1, offtopic" will decrement it. So, these moderations are done to give a funny poster a premium. I, personally, think that to fix this, "funny" mods should increment the poster's karma...

cry more noob (1)

slaida1 (412260) | more than 7 years ago | (#16973754)

Grandparent was as much BS as Microsoft's lie about virtualization being not mature enough. That makes it as insightful as the topic. And moderation tells how topical comment is. GP was +5 topical if not more because of ironic funny sarcasm or something.

Re:Sick of moderation abuse (1, Interesting)

tttonyyy (726776) | more than 7 years ago | (#16973884)

I propose the "slashdotprod", a USB powered device that gives moderators a hefty jolt for not being independantly subjective. (And you'd have to have one plugged in in order to moderate).

3.3V @ 500mA ain't gonna dissade anyone from moderating badly, so obviously the slashdotprod would have to have some form of flyback circuit or switcher/ladder circuit and accumilate charge over time.

Since robots are getting good at pretty much everything these days, we'll just leave it to them to decide who is subjective and who just tastes of bacon and deserves a good prodding. A few false negatives never hurt anyone until now.

Quick, I'd better patent it before LSI or Microsoft get in there first.

Re:Sick of moderation abuse (1)

lubricated (49106) | more than 7 years ago | (#16973886)

you must be new here, but congratulations on figuring out the mod system.

Re:Sick of moderation abuse (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16973926)

You're hardly insightful either. Whine, whine, whine, with no constructive suggestion on how to replace it.

Re:Sick of moderation abuse (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16973950)

Not only that, the current moderation system totally destroys the continuity of every thread, there are +5 replies to posts buried at -1 where the reply does not quote the post it is replying to, resulting in a meaningless +5 post just hanging there.

I would browse slashdot at -1 nested, but that requires me to reload every page I view (on dialup) and pagination of threads is still broken (probably because of the moderation system).

I would rather read a whole thread in its entirety in nested format so things make sense.

So instead of just crapping on the system like I usually do, how about a suggestion:

Instead of destroying the continuity of threads with a flawed moderation system:
Allow all posts to be rated (0-10 scale) by anyone including ACs. Then instead of totally ruining the continuity of threads by hiding stuff that the reader actually wants so see make a "discussion highlights" page where the top 20 rated posts are displayed, then display the entire thread unmolested with pagination that is not broken so that readers can have some measure of continuity here on slashdot.

Heck its getting to the point where I just might fix it myself, where's that link to the slashcode again? The pagination and thread continuity have been broken horribly for far too long. I guess its won't get fixed unless I do it myself.

Another suggestion, drop the Anonymous Coward bit, Anonymous will do just fine, I can post just as anonymously from a registered account. Registration != non-anonymous.

MOD PARENT DOWN (1)

P. Niss (635300) | more than 7 years ago | (#16974000)

-1, Troll

Re:Sick of moderation abuse (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 7 years ago | (#16974040)

Who exactly "shouldn't" get mod points? And what exactly is meta-moderation for do you think? If you don't agree with the moderation then browse at 0 (I do). It really isn't that important what a post is modded as anyway, though I personally am happy if someone considers any of my posts informative or insightful. Most troll and offtopic moderations are correct, and generally other mods I see are correct too (well, there are a few 'funny' moderations of comments that I don't think are funny, one was a really lame/obvious/poorly written one by someone that I suspect was just modded up for having a girl's name.. :s )

Re:Sick of moderation abuse (1)

Leebert (1694) | more than 7 years ago | (#16974054)

That's basically all the current moderation system does...it measures how strongly the people with points agree/disagree with the post in question.


My system of moderation generally has me locate an interesting thread, and burn 3 or so mod points on all of the interesting posts in that thread, regardless of which side of the argument the poster is on. Must be why I didn't have mod points for a year or so, and only recently started getting them again. But anyhow, I find it is the best way for me to be fair.

Is Microsoft ready for virtualization? (1)

qrwe (625937) | more than 7 years ago | (#16973332)

Since VMware released their server software for free, Microsoft has really had to look out. VMw actually are far before Microsoft in virtualizations, no wonder they worry about this!

Finally Microsoft admints (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16973340)

"...enterprises that understand the risks to run Vista.."

It's good that finally MS admitted running their OS has risks.

this makes my blood boil (4, Insightful)

cyber1kenobi (666018) | more than 7 years ago | (#16973346)

Microsoft just continues to prove that they don't get it. Virtualization is where it's at - if every home user had Windows running in a VM aka sandbox, and every time they shut off their box it went back to a clean snapshot... hey, we'd probably have a lot less bot nets out there ey?

Re:this makes my blood boil (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16973470)

The problem is not the technology, it is the licensing. Every time you change your vm machine (memory , network, disk size) vista will conclude it will have to be activated again. After some activations (maybe 1! ) the key will be flagged and you cannot activate NOR can use the key in host machine it was intended for.

The licensing problem is the exact reason vmware did not support XP fully at the start, vm machines needed to be activated again, leading to support nightmares.

As a workarround you can always evalute software 30 days in your vm... since the activation is not mandatory for 30 days.

Do not think too hard about this..... you will explode....

Re:this makes my blood boil (5, Interesting)

badfish99 (826052) | more than 7 years ago | (#16973608)

On the other hand, if all my virtual machines have the same memory, network, disk size etc, then I'll only need to active Windows once, and I can run as many copies of it as I like: they will all see exactly identical machines, so the same activation code will work for all of them.

Could this be what Microsoft are really afraid of?

Re:this makes my blood boil (2, Insightful)

Threni (635302) | more than 7 years ago | (#16973482)

> if every home user had Windows running in a VM aka sandbox, and every time they shut off their box it went back to a clean
> snapshot... hey, we'd probably have a lot less bot nets out there ey?

They'd have a lot fewer apps installed on their system too.

Understanding (5, Insightful)

mSparks43 (757109) | more than 7 years ago | (#16973362)

Microsoft says that consumers don't understand the risks of running virtual machines
I dont understand, what risks?

Re:Understanding (4, Funny)

omeg (907329) | more than 7 years ago | (#16973412)

The risk of everything turning out okay if you accidentally delete all your files or format your hard drive, perhaps (given that you are able to undo this in some virtualization software). Oh, what about the risk of being able to revert quickly if you get infected by a virus? Those are all terrible risks, and it's imperative that home users don't touch virtualization because of it!

Re:Understanding (5, Insightful)

GreatBunzinni (642500) | more than 7 years ago | (#16973682)

I dont understand, what risks?

The same risks Microsoft tried to avoid by making it impossible to use WinXP home as a server: the risk of no one buying the "enterprisey" version of their OS and thus not shelving an extra 200$ per seat.

Re:Understanding (2, Funny)

DrLex (811382) | more than 7 years ago | (#16973714)

I dont understand, what risks?
Don't you know? You can die a horrible death while running an OS inside a virtual machine! It's like learning to fly a plane in a flight simulator, those things kill people!

What risks indeed.. (4, Interesting)

Savage-Rabbit (308260) | more than 7 years ago | (#16973806)

I dont understand, what risks?


I note that they said: 'risks'... plural. Now, I won't pretend I know all of the risks Microsoft sees but the paranoid tin-foil-hat part of me would say that one of those risks is that they don't want OS.X and Linux users running Vista in a VM thus circumventing some of Microsoft's barriers, carefully crafted to prevent OS migration. My less paranoid side tells me they are simply trying to weasel out of having to provide tech support for (how many?) millions of users running Vista Home in a VM. If one calls the help center all they have to do is fall back on the old ' Well you see sir it's like this. If you read the EULA that came with your copy of Windows Vista Home edition you will see that....." routine. It will certainly be interesting to see if Vista Home will actually refuse to boot in a VM or whether this is only a cost limiting exercise.

Re:Understanding (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16974004)

See, that's what Microsoft says, you don't understand what risks.

Re:Understanding (1)

itsdapead (734413) | more than 7 years ago | (#16974006)

I dont understand, what risks?

The risk that customers who run Linux or OSX but need occasional access to Windows might be able to buy a copy to use in a VM for less than the price of a separate windows PC.

If I can buy an OEM copy of Ultimate along with a new hard drive, install it under Boot Camp on my Mac and then legally install it in an OSX-hosted VM as well then I might consider it. If not - well, Windows 2000 runs all the must-have Windows software I need...

Or, ya know.. (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 7 years ago | (#16973364)

warez it like every other home user who doesn't get it preinstalled with their next PC purchase. If home users actually had to pay for a tenth of the software they use, they'd all be using Linux or some other free software distribution.

Re:Or, ya know.. (2, Funny)

G-Licious! (822746) | more than 7 years ago | (#16973458)

So this is how Microsoft achieves such a low TCO.

Re:Or, ya know.. (1)

spellraiser (764337) | more than 7 years ago | (#16973522)

Well, I thought Windows came preinstalled with almost every new PC sold these days. It's usually hard to find vendors that are willing to sell you an OS-less machine, at least where I live (Iceland).

Anyway, people do pay quite a lot for the OEM licenses. It's just that most of them don't realize that they are paying for them. For them, Windows comes 'free' with the computer. If people were made more aware of the fact that they're paying a bunch of money for a single, CD-less copy of Windows that can't be used on any other computer than the one it's installed on, ever, I think they might become a bit pissed off.

Re:Or, ya know.. (1)

jawtheshark (198669) | more than 7 years ago | (#16973576)

Well, I run Windows XP and all software I use is either free as in beer or free as in speech. So, I payed zero for the software I run. (Okay, I donated to several Open Source projects, but technically I didn't have to)

It is perfectly possible to run a Windows machine and never pay for software and stay legit. I mean, who actually paid for Windows? Technically they did, but from a users perspective, it came with "the computer".

So, really, how much is a Win XP Pro license again? 150€ I think could shell that out without having too much problems, if I built my own PC. (Vista will be more expensive, I might think twice there but it will be much harder to pirate than Win XP)

Re:Or, ya know.. (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 7 years ago | (#16973716)

it will be much harder to pirate than Win XP
No, it won't. The protection is already cracked and anything else they add will also be cracked.

Screw it! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16973370)

I didn't want f1rst p0st anyway!

money hungry (1)

gkrat (1031506) | more than 7 years ago | (#16973396)

There was talk of this earlier with the EULA troubles. It's not a security risk, if someone can get it to run virtually then they know enough to not be stupid. They want to you pay the 300-400 if your going to be running it on their competitors os's....microsoft at it's best

Re:money hungry (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16973436)

If you're tech saavy enough to understand what virtualization means, you generally make enough money to afford buying Vista Ultimate. :)

Re:money hungry (1)

gkrat (1031506) | more than 7 years ago | (#16973532)

Some of us are still moving up the chain :D Also, i beleave a quote from linus will work here : "You build an os for idiots, and only idiots will use it" (it was in reference to why he uses kde over gnome , but i belave you could stick vista in there as "super gnome" :D

But why should you? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16973704)

If you're earning enough to buy vista ultimate, why should MS get that money and not, say, Target?

The other option is to pay Microsoft US$300 (5, Funny)

Threni (635302) | more than 7 years ago | (#16973406)

Hehe!

"So you can't use virtualization, unless you can..ahem...demonstrate your understanding"
"Demonstrate my understanding? How would I do that?"
"Well...everything has its price. If you were to, shall we say, *invest* in some understanding, then I could let you use it"
"Ah - I understand. Is this enough of a demonstration?"
(Counting.."Yes, you appear to be sufficiently qualified" (flicks switch)

It's all about the revenue. (2, Insightful)

QuietLagoon (813062) | more than 7 years ago | (#16973422)

Microsoft's stock has been floundering [yahoo.com] for these past few years since Windows 2000 came on the scene. Microsoft needs Vista to jump-start the amount of revenue they take in. Those who want to use virtualization more than likely will not need to features of versions above MS Vista Home, yet Microsoft is forcing those users to spend more than they want to or need to.

Re:It's all about the revenue. (1)

Fedaykien (950387) | more than 7 years ago | (#16973686)

Further point to explore is that the effect of such "immature virtualization " is continuously and widely enforced upon less techie persons. Our parents may doubt our expertise in providing "enough" windows environment at the corner of, let's say, OS X because they believe MS more (yes, they are the typical blinded by MS) than us who has played around all OS and found a way to suffice the need.

Sometimes, parents and MS fanatics are just unbelievably blind to see through. Still, I choose my parents over MS.

Sounds like bullshit... (5, Insightful)

Lonewolf666 (259450) | more than 7 years ago | (#16973428)

Frokm the linked article:
A Microsoft spokesperson told ZDNet Asia: "For production machines and everyday usage, virtualization is a fairly new technology and one that we think is not yet mature enough for broad consumer adoption."

[...]

Michael Silver, Gartner's research vice president, wrote on the analyst company's blog that like Windows rootkits, there is a risk that VM rootkits can be installed unbeknownst to the consumer.

"Microsoft says that consumers don't understand the risks of running virtual machines, and they only want enterprises that understand the risks to run Vista on a VM," Silver said.

I call bullshit on both counts.

First, technology being immature has never stopped Microsoft before from selling it. And for protecting the consumer, a warning in the EULA would suffice. As in "Microsoft does not guarantee for correct function in a virtual environment". An outright prohibition points to other motives.

Second, unscrupulous makers of rootkits will hardly be stopped by an EULA, Mr. Silver.

Re:Sounds like bullshit... (1)

jrumney (197329) | more than 7 years ago | (#16973524)

Second, unscrupulous makers of rootkits will hardly be stopped by an EULA, Mr. Silver.

No, but at least Microsoft will be able to sue the clueless user who became infected, thus persuading them to choose a more robust OS next time around.

Testers?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16973468)

So if my testing team needs to test our software on the home version of windows we can't use our VMWare server which is loaded with images?

great, break out the old POS PC no one wants anymore and we will try to get vista running on it with a VNCServer...THAT will be efficient...

Aiming at the foot... (2, Interesting)

(H)elix1 (231155) | more than 7 years ago | (#16973472)

Sounds like they are not allowing visualization on the Microsoft VM technology, and not a blanket statement on all VM technology like VMWare. I thought it was a nice touch that the Vista installer would fail under VMWare but worked just dandy on the Microsoft one. VMWare patched this in the 5.5.3 release earlier this month, so for those wanting to run Vista in a VM make sure you grab the latest greatest build. Also sounds like it will work if you have an MSDN subscription verion.

Foolish, however. In a VM, for demos, etc... I want as few features as possible using up as little RAM as I can. That way the applications I'm running have more resources. I already use Nlite to trim Win2k and Win2003 down substantially. Having something that has the 'ultimate' set of features OOTB is not a good thing. Thank goodness I spend more time on the server side rather than client - what a mess for those testing thick client applications.

Control the Base, Control the Industry (5, Interesting)

Marcion (876801) | more than 7 years ago | (#16973488)

In serfdom, the Lords own the land, so when the serfs get a good harvest, the Lords can up their rent, and when the serfs have a bad harvest, they can turf them out and keep sheep.

Microsoft seem to be going for a similar strategy, they want Windows always to be the base. Linux as a Virtual Machine on Microsoft is fine, but Microsoft as a virtual machine is not allowed.

If Windows is the base then they can keep their own products in the picture through bundling, dodgy secret agreements, blackmail and so on.

If they lose the base, then they actually have to compete as equals, and Microsoft does not do competition .

I don't get their point (1)

sid77 (984944) | more than 7 years ago | (#16973490)

From TFA:
there is a risk that VM rootkits can be installed unbeknownst to the consumer
Isn't it an issue that should be taken into consideration by the hosting technology producer? Why MS is ever thinking to take care of someone else technology?

And, by the way, doesn't rootkits already exists for windows OS family? Maybe they should think more about their problems ;-)

Reasons why I'll be passing on Vista... (5, Interesting)

bealzabobs_youruncle (971430) | more than 7 years ago | (#16973506)

I should preface this with the statement that I mostly use OS X and Linux for just about everything, but I usually take an extra box and slap the latest version of Windows on it just to maintain some knowledge for customers. But this might be the first version of Windows (yes, I endured ME) that won't get that treatment...

-Even more aggressive Windows Genuine Advantage snooping/phoning home. I haven't bothered to pirate your OS yet, if I pass initial activation you can get off my ass. I know my ass is close to m wallet so I see your motives.

-Exceedingly aggressive DRM built into WMP11. Just a thought, consider the consumer and not your media conglomerate buddies at mega-corp once in a while. You tell me to trust you with my digital life but you won't trust me?

-You insist that I am too dumb to run my PC; far too many processes are hidden/poorly explained or locked out of my control. Now you tell me I'm not smart enough to handle virtualization?

I've never been one to believe MS is some kind of innovation power house, but Vista disappoints on almost every level. I've never entirely trusted a Windows OS, but now my OS doesn't trust me. Linux makes a pretty adequate desktop these days and for those who want a totally trouble free experience OS X is still far more consumer friendly than Vista. True that iTunes does present some DRM issues, but they aren't that hard to subvert and the vast majority of files generated on/by OS X and associated applications are widely supported formats. It will be easy to recommend alternatives for the next couple years...

Re:Reasons why I'll be passing on Vista... (1)

Toreo asesino (951231) | more than 7 years ago | (#16973692)

-So buy it, or quit whining. WGA is a pain if you've stolen Windows, but otherwise it's more or less transparent.

-Don't use WMP11/WMA - no-one's forcing you to.

-No more than any other version of Windows. That's the Windows philosophy; simplicity. If that's not your cup of tea then fine, but you the go on to endorse OSX which takes the same approach as Windows in that the user doesn't need to 'see under the hood' - as long as it works.

You want a real reason not to upgrade? Try:

-Windows XP is very stable, and the most widely supported for hardware software - Vista isn't (yet)

or if you just don't like the way Windows does things:

-I just don't like the way Windows does things. I like to "drive my own car" so to speak and "not be driven".

Re:Reasons why I'll be passing on Vista... (1)

bealzabobs_youruncle (971430) | more than 7 years ago | (#16973802)

Just because WGA is transparent does not mean it is "right"; product activation ought to be enough. And I hardly call explaining my reasoning "whining"; what is the point of a discussion thread in the first place?

Re:Reasons why I'll be passing on Vista... (1)

Toreo asesino (951231) | more than 7 years ago | (#16973942)

So far, WGA just means you don't get the extra free-bits for Windows that don't come out of the box (IE7, Windows Defender, et al - which are now baked into the OS already). In fact, even if Vista is 100% sure you've stolen it it'll still work with things like Areo disabled, and with nag-screens. But then like I say, if you've not paid for it then you can't complain you're being hounded.

In fact, it's activation that's by far the biggest killer - not activating won't let you log-in ultimately. Failing WGA just means no freebies.

Anyway, I'm definitely not saying Vista is the ultimate OS by any standard. It's got some nice bits and some rough bits - like any OS.

Re:Reasons why I'll be passing on Vista... (1)

legoburner (702695) | more than 7 years ago | (#16973798)

The only thing I truely keep windows around for is gaming, but recently I have been forced to (finally) upgrade to windows XP. A significant number of new games have required XP and a few other bits of software (drivers) that I am forced to use have recently stopped installing/working on older windows systems. Although I could always just avoid these products it is a case of (annoyance to me)+(hatred of new 'features' in this version of windows)-(desire to get that/those game(s)). If that is > 0 then it is time to upgrade. My hatred of new 'features' in vista is enough to stop me from wanting it regardless of coming games, but perhaps one day they will try to strongarm those of us who resist into upgrading anyway.

Value Pricing (1)

The Famous Brett Wat (12688) | more than 7 years ago | (#16973534)

Security? Bah, humbug! This is "value pricing", pure and simple. In short, they figure that if you can afford the virtualisation software, you can afford to pay the extra on Windows. The popular example of this (in American circles, at least) is "Saturday night stay" [about.com] pricing on airfares, but it may also be familiar to you with regards to ISPs who have a "no servers" rule on domestic broadband. It's not that they can't support servers, really, just that there's usually a difference in ability to pay between those who want to run a server and those who don't know what a server is. This is about creating an artificial price difference to reflect the perceived value of the feature, rather than the cost of the feature. The fact that they call it a "security" matter is just standard disingenuous corporate practice. ("We don't want to admit that we're gouging you, so we'll say we're trying to help you -- with a straight face, no less.")

hmmmbullshitmm (2, Informative)

KayosIII (655272) | more than 7 years ago | (#16973550)

My understanding is that there are only two versions of Windows vista which are allowed to run inside a virtual machine. A special addition for large corperations and the most expensive version available to home users.... Not that this restriction does not apply to using windows as the host OS....

I believe that the reason for doing this is quite simple... A lot of companies are moving towards virtualisation - Microsoft will make sure that the cheapest option is to use an MS Operating system as the host OS. I think that this tactic is an abuse of their monopoly powers. As the restriction really does not make sense in the amount of work that needs to go into their product.

Me when I upgrade to a capable processor might consider buying a cheap copy of windows to run windows software I occasionally come accross... But if they stick to this stupid rule they are not going to see a red cent from me..... I don't want or need the bells and whistles

Shows their capabilities (1)

harris s newman (714436) | more than 7 years ago | (#16973552)

An operating system running virtually won't "know" it...there is no way to enforce this dictum other than not supporting it, and we all know Microsoft's support sucks for home users anyway.

Re:Shows their capabilities (1)

tttonyyy (726776) | more than 7 years ago | (#16973948)

Conversely, will there be cases where Vista Home falsely detects it is running on a virtual machine when, in fact, it isn't? (WGA springs to mind)

Does anyone know the mechanism by which an OS can detect if it is running virtualised?

And this is an issue why? (1)

3seas (184403) | more than 7 years ago | (#16973602)

For my windows home needs I can wait to upgrade the OS at the point where people are throwing away systems with it installed already.
By that time I'll be able to find fixes for the bugs thru google. And best of all, it won't cost me anything,

Mostly I use linux but suspect that I really should get past the cups problems by learning how to network machines and use the windows box for a print server. Now there is an idea, network a windows tossed out box for the shortcommings of linux.

So is there such a hack that allows me to do such a printer thing from inside Linux applications like gimp? To send it thru a windows box and windows printer driver?

Printing is the only pain I have about Linux. And this is only because its a common desktop need.

Ultimately, do you really need to virtualize a windows box at home?

This just in... (4, Funny)

laughingcoyote (762272) | more than 7 years ago | (#16973624)

Microsoft has recently added to the EULA of its upcoming "Vista" program, disallowing users from installing the operating system.

"We see this as a very positive move for our customers," stated Microsoft chief public relations officer Benja Overr. "While the Windows CD is perfectly safe when being used, for example, for a game of Frisbee or as a very attractive coaster, it's well-known that when most of our customers place the CD in a computer, they end up with viruses, rootkits, and all other sorts of issues. We just don't feel the Windows operating system is mature enough for the average user to be playing with on their computer."

Microsoft stated that the UltiCruftcrapGigantoNightmareRameater version will be available to actually install in a computer. Tentative pricing for this version is set at $1000.

Remote desktop... (1, Informative)

EvilMonkeySlayer (826044) | more than 7 years ago | (#16973658)

One of the things that has really gotten my goat with Vista is remote desktop...

The only versions (that you can buy) that include remote desktop (also known as terminal services) are Business and Ultimate. So, just for a single feature that I require I have to fork over a significantly larger sum than I did for XP Professional.

So, if I say wanted some of the features of the normal desktop versions of Vista then i'd have to get Ultimate. For the most part though I think I can do pretty much everything under the biz version with stuff like VLC, windows media encoder etc.

Microsoft, milking you for all you've got.

Translation.... (5, Insightful)

d3ac0n (715594) | more than 7 years ago | (#16973676)

virtualization is not mature enough for broad adoption


Translation: "We are getting SPANKED by VMWare in the virtualization market, and our PC virtualization sucks. So since we are unable to win against VMWare in the home market, we are taking our ball and going home."

Is anyone really surprised? Any market Microsoft cannot dominate they attempt to squash.

Risks? (1)

MichaelKaiserProScri (691448) | more than 7 years ago | (#16973696)

What risks? How is running 4 VM's on one big machine more risky than running 4 real machines?

by license or force? (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 7 years ago | (#16973746)

If it just against policy, screw them, ill run it in a VM if i want too. I bought it, i can run it on my C64 if i feel like it.

Strange figures (2, Interesting)

badfish99 (826052) | more than 7 years ago | (#16973764)

The figures in TFA are percentages, yet the total in the bottom row is a sum of money. How the hell did that happen?
And the total for SQL Server 2000 is twice that for SQL Server 2005 on the same version of Windows. Does upgrading a database really make that much difference? How?

Perhaps there are some clues in the document that you can download from Microsoft. This reveals that 100% of the linux servers were hosting dynamic web sites, but 50% of the Windows servers were hosting static web sites. That must make a big reduction in the Windows support costs. And there were 10 times more Windows servers than Linux servers, so the costs of Linux-trained admins were spread amongst fewer servers, making them seem more expensive per server.

My guess is that this study was done at a Windows-only shop that had been forced to install a few Linux servers for tasks that were beyong the capabilities of Windows, and was therefore spending a disproportionate amount of money supporting a few specialist Linux boxes.

Hmmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16973792)

Which version will not require activation?

Whichever one that is will be the one that I pirate.

looks familiar (3, Insightful)

Andrei D (965217) | more than 7 years ago | (#16973800)

Microsoft says that consumers don't understand the risks of running virtual machines, and they only want enterprises that understand the risks to run Vista on a VM. So, Microsoft removes user choice in the name of security.
This just reminds me of the infamous quote:
This "users are idiots, and are confused by functionality" mentality is a disease. If you think your users are idiots, only idiots will use it.
Once again Microsoft's attitude is an insult to its customers intelligence. Thank you Microsoft for letting us know that we are morons.

There are more restrictions (4, Informative)

lpiob (987705) | more than 7 years ago | (#16973858)

Not only virtualisation is restricted:

  • you can move license to another computer only once (even in BOX version). So you'll hava to buy new Vista after second mainboard upgrade
  • there is a limit of 10 computers that can see each other and communicate using Microsoft Windows Neighborhood, even in Vista Pro or Ultimate version.
  • license prohibits making screenshots containing desktop or icons or other artwork incorporated into Vista
  • only Vista Ultimate can be copied on to hard disk

This is good (0, Redundant)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 7 years ago | (#16973860)

The more restrictions the better.
 

Well, of course! (2, Interesting)

oneandoneis2 (777721) | more than 7 years ago | (#16973890)

Look: If you buy a legitimate copy of Vista, and then install it on virtual hardware, it'll look to the WGA like you've installed it on multiple machines and it should shut you down for piracy. How are they supposed to monitor everything you do with your hardware if they let you use *imaginary* hardware as well?!?

Be reasonable!

xp is my last version of windows. (1)

luther349 (645380) | more than 7 years ago | (#16973966)

i whont be upgrading to vista ill just be running linux. i dont wana go running there crippleware called vista. i can see it i change my pcs specs video ram etc and it starts compaling it needs to be activted again and for some reasion ms says nope fu you changed your pc you need a new copy of windows. sorry its not gonna happon if my pc comes with windows or i have a cd there should be no limits on hw may pcs i throw it on aslong as there all mine.

Condoms? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16974008)

So, in the interest of security will only Vista Home editions come with condoms?

I find this short-sighted. I'd be of the mind that condoms may, at times, be advantageous in an office environment as well.

If Microsoft is genuinely looking out for the security of us all, then condoms should be packaged with both the Home and Business versions of Vista. The Ultimate edition should perhaps come with ribbed condoms.

Pay $200 more and you will understand the risks? (2, Insightful)

iExcel (1031548) | more than 7 years ago | (#16974062)

Is Microsoft trying to say that if a normal consumer that doesn't appear to understand the risks running a VM will understand the risks after paying $200 for a higher edition of Vista? Does it mean that the more you pay the more you understand the VM technology?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...